Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
L Bird wrote -Do you agree that the revolutionary proletariat should democratically control 'maths and physics'?If you say 'No', you're an Engelsist Materialism.If you say 'Yes', like me, you're a Marxist Idealist-Materialist.Typical of your method of argument, make a statement and then put in your own conclusions about what the respondent might say. If you were to say that we should democratically oversee the work of scientists, no problem, however regardless of your spurious logic, we cannot democraticaly control the outcome of physical experiments, 2+2 equals four, no matter how many times any gorup of individuals vote to say ot doesn't. What you appear to want to create is some kind of Orwellian newspeak.
Hi ALB apparently, I'm an "expert Psychologist" , would you like to pull up a seat and talk about your feelings toward L Bird.Firstly, It's important that you don't get angry.To achieve enlightenment, you need to be like me – recognise that L Bird is a truly gifted individual.The undoubted truth is that we are but mere insects, in comparison to his huge intellect.Not for L Bird the nuances of logical argument, not for him cogent and coherent replies to the view points of others. L Bird uses the supreme dialectic, proof by assertion.You need to recognise that when L Bird tells you what your view is, that is what your view is. When L Bird tells you what to think, that's what you should think, when L Bird asserts something, it is infallible truth. Come join me in the shadow of the greatest thinker of ours, or for that matter any generation. L Bird, we salute you!
"read what I write, and make some progress" – If only we could, oh great master of thought, however your guru like level of understanding is beyond us. Can we make a statue of you and adore and worship at your feet, oh Mighty Sage of all Wisdom?
The scene – A science classroom somewhere in the UK in the late 1980samidst the Bunsen burners, test tubes, retort stands etc. a group of 12 year old school pupils gather, a hushed silence descends upon the room as a man in a tweed coat with patches on his elbows enters the room. Taking off his jacket and putting on his lab coat moving to the front of the classroom. At the front of the class sits a small boy with pimples and glasses, clearly ostracized by his class mates he sits alone separated from the group. He is unaware that on his back one of his fellow pupils has placed a post it note with the word "TWAT" written on.The man in the lab coat speaks – "Today class we will be looking at using the flame test and burning sodium air"The spotty boy with spectacles' hand shoots up – "sir, sir, sir, please sir!!!"The teacher speaks with a heavy heart – "what is it this time boy"L Bird (for tis he) – "sir surely you mean that we will be hoodwinked into believing the socially constructed outcomes of bourgeois thought, masquerading as scientific truth"Loud groans are heard from the rest of the pupils in the class, followed by threats of violence from some.Teacher under his breath "Oh Christ not again" then out loud "Bird, we'll just carry out the experiment and see what happens"L Bird – "But sir do you not see you are an agent of Leninist oppression, by your elitist approach to science, I demand a democratic vote by the rest of my fellow pupils before this experiment continues"Teacher "I won't be oppressing anybody, we just want to see what happens when you burn sodium in air, now settle down and let us get on with the experiment"L Bird – "But sir, you've been led astray by Engels and his crass materialism, don't you see by looking to see what happens when you burn sodium in air you negating the role of consciousness in our scientific understanding. If only you would listen to me……"Teacher loudly "Bird!!! just sit down and let the rest of the class get on with their work"L Bird – "But sir, the rest of the class are too stupid, ill educated and ignorant to understand these concepts, leave them to their Janet and John books and colouring in, only I have the special insight necessary to see through the deceptions of bourgeois science, please, please, can't you see how special I am"repeat ad nauseam for the next twenty years
That's right L Bird You are the cleverest, the brightest the most wonderful of us all, we are but shadows of your towering intellect. You can dismiss anything you don't like with your magic force field of "that's bourgeois" or "your a Leninist" or even your ultimate weapon "I'm clever and you're thick".After all you have achieved the dizzy heights of grade 2 CSE in Philosophy. It must be such a frustrating place to be surrounded on all sides by imbeciles, when you are such a towering genius.
"In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal loveBelieves that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)Requires excessive admirationHas a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectationsIs exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own endsLacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or herRegularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes"I make no further comment
I've only been a member of this forum for a relatively short while, however I've come to the conclusion that the hours of time and effort committed socialists spend in discussion with L Bird is futile, wasted and a distraction from the real task of making socialists through socialist propaganda. If the amount of time spent by members on this forum was translated into productive work for socialism. I am sure it would be to better effect.I doubt that L Bird is ever going to join the socialist movement. If his neediness, apparent need to have his ego stroked and practically pathological need to be told how clever he is emerged whilst a member of the party, I fear his presence in the party would do exactly what it does on this forum, distract, annoy etc. In the end I fear he would do as a party member what he does on this forum, drive people away.
The big question is does the phenomemon of L Bird exist outside of our awareness of him?Or even more important, did L Bird exist before we became consious of him?This leads to the question should the proletariate take a vote on the existance of L Bird?If they vote no, what future for L Bird?
Yet again i must pick you upNo matter how often I treat you as an adult, you revert to child-like ignoranceThat wasn't child like ignorance, it was child like behaviour, C minus, must try harder
L Bird – That is what 'talk of consciousness' implies – that you will reveal your social consciousness, which you employ when you create your object.Going back to my original question, which you so noticeably avoided, "since materialsits see any talk of consciousness as idealism", I'll ask you to explain again, considering I have just spent the last half our "talking of consciousness" how can it be that I see talking of consciousness as idealism, I don't. Please therefore back up your sweeping statementL Bird – "You think Marx's 'theory and practice' amounts to 'theory' – you said so, earlier." please tell me when, which by the way you can't, because I didn't, yet another example of speciousness
Again L Bird, misrepresentation and sophism. There is nothing in my statement to back up your claim that I am arguing for "passive reflection", as illustrated by my statement that theory is produced by"human consciousness and as such reflects all of the various influences, specific and general, human experience brings with it." As such theory, understanding, existence, experience, knowledge, etc. begins from the moment we are conceived. We develop mental representations of the experiences, not merely through cognition, but through feeling, instinct, language, number, etc. creating what Kelly, Beck, Piaget, etc would describe as schema. At any moment in time our "intelligence" can be described in terms of our developing accommodations and perceptions, none of which are final. This does not equate with passive reflection.Humans do create their own reality, by the way, where yours came from is anybody's guess, however this reality cannot be as you state "objective" that is:"based on real facts, and not based on personal beliefs or feelings" or ""dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings"It must by definition, actually by your definition, by subjective.You then go on to leap to the conclusion, that through this process of the creation of our "objective organic nature", (which as stated must by definition actually be subjective), humans create matter! I do create matter, but afterwards I usually wipe my arse and flush it away, I suggest you might do the same with the shit you produce.
"Since materialists see any talk of 'consciousness' as idealism' is a direct quote from L Bird. Very simple task for you L Bird, now back that statement up without any of the usual waffling, deviation, obfuscation, etc. you usually use.I would describe myself as a Materialist and I do not see "any talk of consciousness as idealism". That would be a ridiculous statement, not only that, I have never come across any other member of the SPGB in pushing 35 years of membership of the party state any thing of the kind. The statement is however typical of the specious arguments you put forward.
The bit that L Bird seems unable to comprehend is that the understanding (i.e.. the model, in this case the theoretical model of gravity) is produced by human consciousness and as such reflects all of the various influences, specific and general, human experience brings with it. HOWEVER that model or view or theory etc. created as it is by human consciousness is ultimately based on a reality processed by the individual, the group, the social class, etc. We can alter our perception of reality, we can alter our understanding of reality, what we cannot change by thought alone, is the reality itself. What L Bird appears to be suggesting is that matter only exists when observed by a human, whereas the truth is that human perception of reality only exists when humans perceive reality. In addition to this L Bird seems to suggest that the only factor in human perception is social Cass, whereas this is far from the case, for instance does reality change because an individual with schizophrenia observes it. In terms of understanding the basis of human cognitive development he may be better served reading Bowlby and Vygotsky!
The Spanish Inquisition wrote that ""Capitalism doesn't aim to meet human needs; it meets human desires"Actually that's not true, The only aim of any capitalist concern is to make profit. If in making that profit they meet human need and or desire, so be it, if in making that profit it meets no human need or desire again that is immaterial. The PPI "scandal" is an example of a capitalist enterprise which did not wish to meet a human need or desire, the marketing of thalidomide at pregnant women another, there are so many more. Just because a text book on an MBA states something, it does not make it true.
